Slashdot Mirror
Elsevier Wants $15 Million In 'Piracy' Damages From Sci-Hub and Libgen (torrentfreak.com)
lbalbalba writes: Elsevier, one of the largest academic publishers, is demanding $15 million in damages from Sci-Hub and LibGen, who make paywalled scientific research papers freely available to the public [without permission]. A good chunk of these papers are copyrighted, many by Elsevier. Elsevier has requested a default judgment of $15 million against the defendants for their "truly egregious conduct" and "staggering" infringement. Sci-Hub's efforts are backed by many prominent scholars, who argue that tax-funded research should be accessible to everyone. Others counter that the site doesn't necessarily help the "open access" movement move forward. Sci-Hub's founder Alexandra Elbakyan defends her position and believes that what she does is helping millions of less privileged researchers to do their work properly by providing free access to research results.
“The Sci-Hub will continue as usual. In case of problems with the domain names, users can rely on TOR scihub22266oqcxt.onion,” Elbakyan tells us.
It is already there.
It is due to the unfortunate tradition of basing tenure for scientists on the impact factor of the journals they publish their works in. Elsevier happens to own several high impact journals. Of course, for scientists at research universities where tenure is granted by fellow professor, a simple change of how the faculty evaluate new comers' work can eliminate most of the motivation to publish with an Elsevier journal.
Is there any actual proof that SciHub's illegal activity is having a positive impact on poor countries?
I don't know the answer to your specific question, but I can answer another one:
Does SciHub increase the Impact Factor (IF)* of Elsevier journals, by spreading articles within them more widely, and thus getting them cited more? The answer is an undoubted "YES."
* IF is a "rule-of-thumb" number that gives you a general idea of the relevancy of any particular journal.**
** IF can be gamed, so Thomson-Reuters came out with the "Eigenfactor", which is much more resistant to gaming or "fluffing."
YES YES YES! The Pubic pays THREE times for scientific and engineering information. Everyone does.
(1) Your taxes pay for research projects.
(2) The researcher does the work, and writes-up his/her results in a paper.
(3) A Referee for the Journal gives it a thumbs-up or -down for publication, doing the job for free.
(4) The Researcher must then pay the journal "page charges" to print the article.
(5) To access the article, anyone must go to a library that pays an extortionate subscription fee to the journal to allow the Public access. Alternatively, a person can pay $30-100 for a PDF of the article. This group includes, BTW, the authors of a given article.
I once had to pay $35 to get a PDF of an article where I was a listed co-author!!! (My library, at a top-10 US university, did not describe to the journal in question, so I was stuck.)
It is very simple. If you want to have any career in science, you have to publish. No papers, no career. Publish or perish.
Let's say you are a researcher at a public university, you are funded by the taxpayer. You just spent one year doing research and have found out something important that you want to publish. You write a submission and send it to a publisher. Elsevier then sends your submission to a reviewer, who is typically a researcher at another university. The reviewer works for free (his payment is that he gets to read the new research before other people).
If your paper gets a positive review, then you will have to pay publication charges. Typically $ 100 to 500. Universities pay for these charges as well, they don't care much about them, because you, the taxpayer, will pick up the tab. Actually most projects come with a budget for said publication charges. honestly, when your paper gets accepted, you are so happy you wouldn't mind paying yourself. Finally your paper gets published. If you want to read a paper, you have to pay $30 for a pdf of a 2 page paper, or your university has to be a subscriber (10k/year).
You could as well upload the paper to arxiv, who will publish it for free, but free publications don't count for your publication record.
Scientific publishing is a license to print money. There is a lot of other stuff going on in the field, such as very low quality journals publishers create and then force libraries to subscribe to.
The model extends to book publications as well. If you write a research monograph (these sell for $100 to $200 each), the publisher will often pay you nothing or a few hundred dollars.
Are you retarded? If taxpayer fund the research, even in a small way, then taxpayers are entitled to the results. Don't like it? Don't take taxpayer money. It's pretty straightforward isn't it douchebag?
You have fundamental misunderstanding of what Elsevier does and why it does what it does. Elsevier does not pay the authors of the papers it publishes. What the authors get is access and scientific credit. For most scientists you have to publish papers to get credit and feedback from other scientists. Back before the internet Elsevier printed and bound and distributed scientific journals. They did this for papers that were approved by other scientists. Now most of this is done electronicly at a much lower cost. The editorial function of Elsevier remains. Many of the papers Elsevier publishes are actually the result government funded research. In the US government funded research papers can only be tied up for a limited time.
Similar disputes are occurring in the legal field within the US. The law can and is different in different countries. Elsevier is an expensive dinosaur which needs to change with the times.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news...
Who's downloading pirated papers? Everyone
In rich and poor countries, researchers turn to the Sci-Hub website.
By John BohannonApr. 28, 2016 , 2:00 PM
but free publications don't count for your publication record.
Where is that written?
So your university won't 'count' free publication in your record? What's their reasoning behind that? (Follow the money.) 'Open source' peer review shouldn't be that difficult to set up if, as you say, reviewers work for free and the opportunity to get a 'first peek'.
Anybody can post a "Lorem ipsum ..." or other nonsense document to the ArXiv. Hence, numerous hacks do exactly that, in a misguided attempt to build up the "casual-glance" value of their CV's list of publications. The great thing about the ArXiv is that it plants a flag in the ground, recording the date that you uploaded it. This helps to prevent you being 'scooped' by some other researcher working in the same area. At the same time as your ArXiv upload, you submit your final manuscript to a good journal. It might take a year for your publication to appear in a "peer-reviewed journal of record," so it's worth hedging your bets in this way. You see, it only matters who discovered and reported it first , in the long run.
There are also, unfortunately, tons of outfits that create "journals" left and right. As long as you pay their high fees, they will publish whatever crap you have. Inferior researchers use these avenues to try to fool hiring managers and HR. Good researchers get to know the mainstream outlets, and the "shady" outlets. There are other metrics to refer to, just to be sure.
Last, there are indeed some open-access, peer-reviewed journals, but not very many. A top journal in mathematics was the first one to make the jump, I believe. The entire editorial board resigned from the Elsevier-owned journal, and immediately formed a new journal with a very similar name. Everyone knew that the Editorial Board of this open-access journal was top-notch, as the story made the geek news, so they had no shortage of papers being submitted for possible publication.
I have paid an "extra fee" on a few of my papers to make them "open access and permanently available on the journal's website." Otherwise, I just upload them to ResearchGate.com (or a co-author does) or to my own personal website. There are fair-use rules for academic sharing, and some journals are otherwise cool with the arrangement because it increases their readership.
Prestige and impact factor. Yes, you could start your own journal. However, if I'm some university researcher and I want tenure, or a post-doc looking for a job, it makes much more sense for my career to publish in the most prestigious journal I can. It goes back to the stupid 'publish or perish' model. The system, in its wisdom, says that you have to have those publications, end of story. Nothing else matters.
What you say is true in theory, but it requires a lot of people recognizing the problems we have and being willing to be the change necessary to make improvements. Unfortunately, knowing the problem and taking the steps to change it are two different things.
Aaron Swartz lost this battle. Hopefully others will prevail.
Remember, there are no stupid questions. But there are a lot of inquisitive idiots.
But it's the people that define the law
Pull the other one. It has a bell attached!